11:01:04 RRSAgent has joined #audio-description 11:01:04 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/05/01-audio-description-irc 11:01:11 Zakim has joined #audio-description 11:01:18 rrsagent, make logs public 11:01:27 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio-description/2019Apr/0002.html 11:01:30 Present: Nigel 11:01:34 scribe: nigel 11:01:39 Log: https://www.w3.org/2019/05/01-audio-description-irc 11:01:41 Chair: Nigel 11:05:28 MattS has joined #audio-description 11:07:38 Present+ Matt 11:08:35 Topic: Review this agenda 11:08:52 group: agenda looks fine 11:09:06 Nigel: Attendance is low today but we'll use the time to make what progress we can 11:09:34 Topic: Open pull requests 11:09:52 Nigel: Looking at #6 https://github.com/w3c/adpt/pull/6 11:10:01 .. Editorial fixes. Closes #4. Also makes any fragment ids valid. 11:10:28 Nigel: First to note is that Cyril raised the issue but hasn't managed to review the pull request yet. 11:13:51 .. In the diff there are some changed dispositions - this is because I based the branch for this on the branch for pull 11:14:20 .. request #9 so the disposition changes are included in those. 11:16:58 Matt: This looks fine to me. [approves pull request] 11:17:01 Nigel: Thank you! 11:17:17 .. 11:17:29 .. The next one is pull request 7, Issue 0005 restructure #7 https://github.com/w3c/adpt/pull/7 11:17:36 Matt: Got that. Yes, this is a bigger change. 11:17:46 .. This is a reordering of the sections rather than the content? 11:17:49 Nigel: Yes, mainly. 11:17:57 Matt: What was the driver for this change? 11:18:15 Nigel: This was the feedback that we generated from the previous meeting where we tried to think about the best 11:18:25 .. structure for the document especially for people coming to it for the first time. 11:18:28 Matt: I remember 11:19:25 .. You've added a real world example? 11:19:56 Nigel: The new appendix D is renamed, the other examples were in other appendices, but I moved them into the Introduction. 11:19:58 .. Section 2.1 11:21:02 .. The diff has done something strange to the formatting of the example includes, the preview does a better job. 11:21:05 Matt: Yes, that makes sense 11:21:47 Nigel: One of the goals we had was to move the more important stuff higher up the document. 11:22:20 Matt: That makes sense. 11:22:27 Nigel: One effect is to move the requirements to the appendix 11:22:45 Matt: This makes sense to me - I'm impressive we've kept it this small a document! 11:23:42 .. [approves] 11:23:44 Nigel: Thank you! 11:23:45 .. 11:24:12 .. Next is Permit only media timebase #9 https://github.com/w3c/adpt/pull/9 11:24:30 Matt: I said in the issue this fundamentally makes sense. 11:24:42 .. It potentially makes it more of a distribution format than an archive format. 11:24:48 .. Implementers may have a strong view. 11:24:54 Nigel: I was hoping to elicit that view! 11:25:10 Matt: My gut feeling, and talking with other broadcasters about, say, EBU-TT Part 2 as a way into EBU-TT, is that 11:25:37 .. the ability to support the backwards compatibility remains very strong. Anything that forces a move away from that 11:25:49 .. purity of form may present implementation challenges in the future. 11:26:01 Nigel: I think I understand. 11:26:16 Matt: If we try to chase something technically pure here then real world implementers may have problems if they 11:26:26 .. cannot access the out of band data to recalculate any offsets. 11:26:39 .. They may try to introduce their own fields or data to handle that within the file which may have unintended 11:26:49 .. consequences or proliferation in varied practices. 11:26:54 Nigel: That's true. 11:27:45 Matt: If this is used for the share of data, and everything we have built so far is built on SMPTE timecode, I don't think 11:28:04 .. we ever put any content in before the start of media. In all practical purposes it doesn't make a difference but it does 11:28:14 .. require knowledge or an assumption about the start of media and how it relates. 11:28:30 .. I don't know what role this group has in proffering suggestions for good practice operationally. 11:28:49 .. We could give guidance about how to deal with this challenge, and if we don't then people might be creative 11:28:56 .. and could come up with different solutions. 11:29:16 Nigel: That's true. I think this group is perfectly placed to provide informative guidance of that sort. 11:29:54 .. The other observation I would make is that we can start small and if there's a need to introduce SMPTE later we 11:30:08 .. can do that. It's easier than to remove unneeded features. 11:30:19 Matt: We just need to be sensitive to the trigger for that process. 11:30:21 Nigel: Yes 11:31:03 Matt: We would need to stay on top of when that may need to be revisited, rather than people coming up with creative workarounds. 11:31:10 Nigel: Agreed. 11:32:27 .. Given I've talked to 4 members so far who have been able to live without SMPTE, and nobody has objected, I feel 11:32:34 .. we have enough consensus to proceed with the change. 11:32:40 .. That takes us to the pull request itself. 11:33:57 .. I removed everything to do with clock and smpte timebase and also noticed that region timing should be removed. 11:34:32 .. It was already omitted, so there's no substantive change for that feature; the prohibition is just made explicit. 11:35:08 Matt: Looks good to me, I will approve this. I will add a note too. 11:35:11 Nigel: Great, thank you. 11:36:13 .. 11:36:33 .. There's one more: pull request 11 Change DFXP references to TTML2 profiles https://github.com/w3c/adpt/pull/11 11:36:40 Matt: Just looks like a note in section 4 11:38:09 Nigel: That's correct - the heritage is a bit of copy and paste from IMSC, which was based in TTML1, which didn't 11:38:26 .. define as many standard profiles as TTML2 does. This work has to be based on TTML2 so I've changed it to match. 11:38:31 Matt: Looks good to me. [approves] 11:39:02 Nigel: Thank you, I'll merge those all later. 11:39:59 .. Actually just to note I had a message from Peter Spoor saying he will take a look, and Chris O'Brien also said he would 11:40:16 .. review the changes, so I'll give them a couple of days to add any more comments before merging them. 11:40:41 Topic: Issue 8 Constrain to one leaf element being active for audio at any one time? 11:40:49 -> https://github.com/w3c/adpt/issues/8 11:41:27 Matt: The reasons for allowing this would need other changes in the specification. 11:41:29 Nigel: For example? 11:41:47 Matt: Say if this is used for spoken subtitles with multiple voices, then simply permitting multiple leaf nodes isn't enough. 11:41:55 .. We should work through the use case and see what is needed. 11:42:07 .. It is not a current requirement for this document. 11:42:22 Nigel: Good point, we may add support for that later, potentially. 11:43:15 .. Just to note as well that Pilar raised an issue on the w3c/tt-reqs repo asking for spoken subtitles support, 11:43:32 .. and I think the requirement is all about signalling, rather than content, and I have an action to try to summarise that 11:43:38 .. and get her views on that summary. 11:43:46 .. 11:43:55 .. Right now, the two commenters are in agreement for this issue. 11:44:13 .. In the absence of any contrary views I will prepare a pull request to make the change. 11:44:29 Topic: Issue 10 Do we need to support `#contentProfiles` or `#processorProfiles`? 11:44:36 -> https://github.com/w3c/adpt/issues/10 11:45:13 Nigel: Here I'm proposing we require support for the features in processors but not for them to be used in documents, 11:45:17 .. where usage would be optional. 11:45:39 .. It might be a useful output of this group to describe a best practice in how to use those features, at some point in the future. 11:45:47 Matt: Agreed 11:46:07 Nigel: We have agreement from the two commenters so far and no contrary views so I will prepare a pull request for this. 11:46:52 Topic: Future Meetings 11:47:01 Matt: I could support a later slot in the day 11:47:17 Nigel: That would probably be helpful for folk in Canada or the US, say. 11:47:39 .. I feel that we have had low attendance and input so far, which may be a sign that everyone's happy, but I would 11:47:49 .. be more confident if there were a higher volume of input. 11:48:16 .. So I'll look to set up some calls, maybe just a couple, in May, at different times, to try to give more opportunity 11:48:18 .. for participation. 11:48:21 Matt: Makes sense. 11:48:29 Nigel: Thank you, that's an action on me! 11:48:36 Topic: AOB 11:49:13 Nigel: BBC put out a consultation about its iPlayer service recently, and RNIB contributed feedback, 11:49:21 .. which is public at: 11:49:30 -> https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/consultation/iplayerpit BBC Consultation 11:49:42 -> http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/consultation/iplayerpit/rnib.pdf RNIB input (PDF) 11:50:25 .. I mention this because RNIB states support for a standard format for audio description, which this work is intended to create. 11:51:17 Topic: Meeting close 11:51:34 Nigel: Thank you for that - only two of us on the call today but I think we made useful progress. [adjourns meeting] 11:51:37 rrsagent, make minutes 11:51:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/05/01-audio-description-minutes.html nigel 13:32:52 Zakim has left #audio-description 13:42:39 Meeting: Audio Description Community Group 13:42:40 rrsagent, make minutes 13:42:40 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/05/01-audio-description-minutes.html nigel 13:43:23 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 13:43:24 rrsagent, make minutes 13:43:24 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/05/01-audio-description-minutes.html nigel